Mozilla announced that its brand new CEO Brendan Eich has just resigned. All of this comes in the wake of pressure from gay rights activists who said that Eich’s support of traditional marriage rendered him unworthy of leading the company. Here’s a snippet from the statement explaining Eich’s resignation:
Brendan Eich has chosen to step down from his role as CEO. He’s made this decision for Mozilla and our community.
Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.
Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness. We welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views. Mozilla supports equality for all.
We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public. This is meant to distinguish Mozilla from most organizations and hold us to a higher standard. But this time we failed to listen, to engage, and to be guided by our community.
There is a culture war being waged in this situation, but not by Eich. Eich’s views on marriage have had no impact on his performance except that opponents view his opinions as bigoted and outside the bounds of rationality. In other words, supporting traditional marriage renders one unfit to lead a major corporation.
Notice too that acceptance of gay marriage is the necessary condition of free speech at Mozilla. Yes, one can have free speech at this company as long as it does not conflict with the new orthodoxy on marriage.
Unfortunately, I expect we’ll be seeing more and more stories like this one. Activist have succeeded in equating the conjugal view of marriage with bigotry and hatred. As that point of view spreads in our culture, employers will be less and less willing to risk their company’s brand on employees who might tarnish that brand with their personal views. The effect? Those who support traditional marriage will have to conceal their views or face the consequences.
This does not portend good things, but it is an indication of things to come.
The following is an unpublished excerpt from Salvo magazine’s recent interview with Robert George of Princeton University.
SALVO: One conservative Christian recently wrote that in the battle for traditional marriage, “Christians too often chose intolerance over charity when it came to how they treated gays.” Have we, as Christians, demonstrated a lack of love for gay people?
Robert George: No, we’ve been falsely accused of showing a lack of charity and a lack of love because that was very convenient to the arguments of the other side, a very effective tool. In fact, the overwhelming majority of people of all faiths who’ve been involved in the protection of marriage have gone out of their way, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church goes out of its way, to proclaim the truth that all men and woman are precious. Human beings have a profound and inherent dignity, an equal dignity, as creatures made in the very image and likeness of the Divine Creator and Ruler of the Universe.
This has never been something hidden. It has been frequently affirmed and re-affirmed, yet there are those who wish to refuse to hear it because it’s politically useful to their cause to depict Christians as mean-spirited or bigoted or hostile to people just because they don’t like something about them. It’s a slander. And for us to pretend that the slander is true is itself a sin against the truth. I’m all for confessing error and wrongdoing where error and wrongdoing have been committed. But I see no point in confessing sins that one has not committed, especially when doing so is the precise objective of those who wish unfairly to tar people or a movement as bigoted or hostile.
One of the most important religious liberty cases in a generation will come before the Supreme Court on Tuesday. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties will be making their final appeal for an exemption from Obamacare’s coercive “contraceptive” mandate. Obamacare requires employers to provide health coverage for all FDA-approved contraceptive devices. So what’s the problem?
Some of the devices—like IUD’s and morning-after pills—can cause abortions. The owners of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga are Christians and have said that they cannot in good conscience pay for coverage that can lead to killing an unborn human being. So these Christians have a choice. Either violate their conscience and provide coverage for abortion inducing drugs, or face crippling fines that will effectively put them out of business. And that is why they are at the Supreme Court—to ask for relief from government coercion to sin. Continue Reading →
The Pew Research Center recently conducted a poll on support for gay marriage. Among those who identify as Democrats, there are no surprises. A solid majority supports gay marriage. But opinion among Republicans is quite divided at the moment. The division is not regional (red state vs. blue state) but generational. While only 39% of Republicans support gay marriage overall, a whopping 61% of Republicans under the age of 30 favor legal gay marriage.
What does this mean? If demographics is destiny, it is very clear what is going on here. The Republican party’s future will be no different from the Democratic party’s present on the issue of marriage. It also means that social conservatives who insist on public policies supporting traditional marriage will be increasingly alienated from the party. There won’t be a place at the GOP table very much longer for social conservatives who care about this issue. Continue Reading →
I have written numerous times about the florist in Washington state who is being sued for her refusal to participate in a gay wedding. Her story in particular is really troubling. She has been happily serving gay people in her shop for years. She served one gay couple for nearly a decade and had become good friends with them. But when they asked her to participate in their wedding ceremony, she politely declined. She is a Southern Baptist Christian, and she told them that she couldn’t participate because of her relationship with Jesus.
Word of her refusal spread through social media, and the attorney general of the state of Washington sued her for breaking the state’s nondiscrimination law. On top of that, the gay couple who she had been friends with for all those years also sued her. And now the ACLU has piled on as well.
I don’t know how anyone who knows the facts of this case can have anything but sympathy for Stutzman. She loves Jesus. She loves gay people. But now the state is trying to coerce her into participating in gay weddings. If she loses, she could lose her shop and her livelihood–all of this for the crime of obeying her conscience. This is a great injustice, and I hope people will see this for what it is–persecution.
Watch her story above, and share this video with as many people as you possibly can. And pray for Barronelle. She needs it right now.
John Murdock has an apt analysis of last week’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). In short, he says that pot was in and that social conservatism was out.
Traditionally, the conservative coalition has been concieved as a three-legged stool: social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and foreign policy conservatives. Murdock says that the social conservative leg was missing at CPAC and that Libertarianism is on the rise.
There were no sessions devoted to pro-life issues. Nor were there any sessions given to advance a traditional view of marriage. These staples of social conservatism simply weren’t on the agenda. Nor were they major emphases of the headline speakers–not even of those who are potential contenders for the GOP presidential nomination in 2016. Continue Reading →
You might think that support for gay marriage exists mainly among America’s coastal elites and urban centers. It’s an easy explanation to believe that public opinion in blue states is one thing and that public opinion in red states is another. But that is actually not the case when it comes to gay marriage. A study released last year shows that support for gay marriage is increasing rapidly across the country in both red and blue states. In an article today for The Atlantic, one of the authors of the study—Robert Jones—writes about his findings. Continue Reading →
Conor Friedersdorf does not agree with Christian views on sexuality. He doesn’t think homosexuality or premarital sex is a sin. He supports legal gay marriage. Nevertheless, he believes it is wrong to accuse Christian business owners of being bigots for refusing to participate in gay weddings. He also defends Ross Douthat against such ugly accusations. Writing for The Atlantic, Friedersdorf argues that “Refusing to Photograph a Gay Wedding Isn’t Hateful.”
Ross Douthat has penned what I believe to be the most insightful analysis of what has happened in our country over the last week. He correctly observes that the debate over gay marriage in our country is all but over. Despite some regional holdouts, majority public opinion has moved in favor of recognizing gay marriage. And it’s only a matter of time before a majority of the holdouts—primarily in the South—move that way as well. The Supreme Court’s Windsor decision last summer ensures that legal gay marriage in all fifty states is a fait accompli at this point. Continue Reading →